1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR Case No. 23-cv-04265-PCP

MANUFACTURING COMPANY

8 LIMITED,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

9 Plaintiff, DENYING IN PART JOINT RENEWED

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

10 v. SEAL

11 LONGHORN IP LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 85 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (“TSMC”) and 14 defendants Longhorn IP LLC and Hamilcar Barca IP, LLC have again moved to seal substantial 15 portions of the complaint and the exhibits thereto, the motion to dismiss briefing, and the parties’ 16 January 9, 2024 joint case management statement. Dkt. No. 85. This is the parties’ second 17 consolidated motion to seal, submitted after the Court found the parties’ prior requests to be 18 substantially overbroad and insufficiently supported. Dkt. No. 83. The parties’ renewed motion is 19 granted in part and denied in part. 20 The public has a longstanding and well-recognized “right to inspect and copy public 21 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 22 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Public access bolsters “understanding of the judicial process” and 23 “confidence in the administration of justice,” and it provides a “measure of accountability” for 24 courts. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). There is 25 thus a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 To overcome this strong presumption, a party who wishes to seal a court record must 1 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 2 1178–79 (cleaned up). Sealing may be justified when “court files ... become a vehicle for improper 3 purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, 4 or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. But without more, the “fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation” does not 6 merit sealing. Id. “Under this stringent standard,” the Court must “conscientiously balance the 7 competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” 8 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–99. Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1) and (f)(3) requires the party seeking 9 to seal to provide “a specific statement” of the reasons for doing so, explaining the interests that 10 warrant sealing and the injury that will otherwise result. 11 The Court finds that that Katana and Carthage bank account numbers, routing numbers, 12 and swift codes appearing in Exhibits I and J to the complaint reflect “sensitive financial-account 13 data” that is appropriate for redaction consistent with Federal Rule 5.2(a). The Court also finds 14 that specific monetary values discussed, agreed to, or paid during negotiations between the parties, 15 as well as with third parties are not germane to the dispute before the Court. The parties’ motion is 16 therefore granted with respect to the specific monetary values at the following locations: 17 Document Location 18 Complaint, Dkt. No. 85-4 10:27 19 14:27-28 15:6 20 15:8 21 16:2 16:5 22 16:5 16:6 23 16:15 24 18:22 18:24 25 Complaint Ex. B, Dkt. No. 85-6 Term Sheet Page 1 of Email 26 Complaint Ex. C, Dkt. No. 85-7 Chain 27 Page 1 of Email Complaint Ex. D, Dkt. No. 85-8 Chain Under Item 5 1 2 Complaint Ex. I, Dkt. No. 85-10 Section III 3 Complaint Ex. J, Dkt. No. 85-11 Section III 4 Page 1 of Email 5 Complaint Ex. L, Dkt. No. 85-12 Chain Page 1 of Email 6 Complaint Ex. M, Dkt. No. 85-13 Chain Page 1 of Email 7 Chain Page 1 of Email 8 Chain 9 Page 1 of Email Chain 10 Page 1 of Email Complaint Ex. N, Dkt. No. 85-14 Chain 11 Page 1 of Email Chain 12 Page 1 of Email 13 Chain Page 2 of Email 14 Chain Complaint Ex. O, Dkt. No. 85-15 Page 1 of Letter 15 Page 1 of Letter 16 Page 1 of Letter Complaint Ex. P, Dkt. No. 85-16 Page 1 of Letter 17 Complaint Ex. Q, Dkt. No. 85-17 Page 1 of Letter Page 1 of Letter 18 Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 85-18 2:1 19 2:2 2:2 20 2:3 21 2:12 5:27 22 6:1 6:7 23 6:9 24 6:9 6:10 25 6:11 26 6:11 6:14 27 6:14 6:21 1 6:25 2 6:25 6:26 3 8:16 4 10:14 10:17 5 10:18 10:20 6 10:21 7 10:21 10:24 8 11:3 9 11:4 11:5 10 11:9 11:9 11 11:20 12 11:21 11:22 13 11:23 11:23 14 11:24 15 11:27 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 16 No. 85-19 2:11 17 3:17 3:25 18 4:11 4:12 19 4:13 20 4:15 6:7 21 6:8 22 8:21 9:5 23 9:6 9:11 24 9:20 25 9:26 10:8 26 10:15 10:16 27 10:19 11:5 1 11:6 2 11:24 11:27 3 12:27 4 13:19 21:21 5 Reply to Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 85-20 1:9 6 1:11 7 1:12 1:14 8 1:19 1:19 9 1:20 10 1:22 2:26 11 2:27 12 3:3 3:12 13 3:15 3:15 14 3:16 15 3:16 3:18 16 3:19–20 3:20 17 3:24 18 3:26 4:5 19 4:6 20 4:17–18 21 4:21 5:27 22 5:28 23 6:1 6:10 24 25 By contrast, and for substantially the same reasons identified in the prior order, the Court 26 finds that the parties’ request concerning the remaining terms remains significantly overbroad. As 27 noted in the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, a party that files a significantly overbroad 1 all documents sought to be sealed in the public docket.”! 2 Regardless, the parties have not identified compelling reasons that might justify sealing 3 terms governing the mechanics for determining the duration of their standstill agreement or the 4 || purpose of and mechanics for implementing their intellectual property collaboration and services 5 agreement. These terms are central to the merits questions presented in this matter; indeed, Counts 6 1-7 of TSMC’s Complaint each seek either to enforce those terms or hold defendants liable for 7 their breach. Depriving the public of access to those terms would effectively prevent the public 8 || from acquiring any understanding of the Court’s decisions in this matter. Because TSMC seeks to 9 || enforce its alleged rights under those terms through litigation in federal court, the public’s right of 10 access to judicial records and its interest in “understanding ... the judicial process,” Ctr. for Auto 11 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096, trump the parties’ propriety interests in maintaining the confidentiality of 12 || those terms. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Within 14 days, 14 || the parties shall file on the public record each of the documents previously filed under seal with 3 15 only those redactions as permitted by this Order. 16

= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: June 14, 2024 19

1 P.CaseyTitts United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases is available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/2023.11.13-PCP-Civil-Standing-Order.FINAL_.CLEAN_.pdf.